HOA Law Injustices

Evidence continues to come to NVHOAReform from owners across Nevada showing that the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED) is exercising authority lawmakers did not give it. It is my assessment, this not merely aggressive regulatory discretion. It is the exercise of authority outside the jurisdiction Nevada law established

Nevada’s HOA system gives private actors the first move. Developers write declarations, associations exercise powers those declarations confer, and government often comes later—after owners are already bound. The result is a legislative game of HOA Whack-a-Mole.

Nevada law says HOA owners have a right to exhibit political signs. But it does not expressly define important boundaries such as minimum size or display period. That seemingly simple gap points to a much larger question: who decides how much authority an HOA may exercise in the first place?

Nevada specifically prohibits harassment in homeowners associations. But the way the law is enforced creates a striking imbalance: owners may have little regulatory recourse, while boards can pursue alleged owner misconduct through increasingly powerful enforcement avenues.

Nevada’s HOA Commission has already voted to adopt R091-25. Yet when FOX5 asked NRED to explain the controversial HSW language, state officials declined, saying comment would be “premature.” That raises a larger question about accountability in Nevada’s HOA regulatory system.

Buying into an HOA means accepting a system of governance. It does not mean surrendering the right to question whether the board had authority, followed the governing documents, or stayed within Nevada law.

Nevada may have some of the nation’s strongest HOA laws. But knowing what the law says is only the beginning. Fine limits, hearings, NRED complaints, mediation and even “you can sue” come with realities owners need to understand.

Can a board take speech that is harsh, persistent, even insulting or upsetting, characterize it as “harassment,” and then bootstrap it into a health, safety and welfare violation carrying fines with no statutory limit? If the owner disagrees, the only remaining response can become: Sue us. That Is a Powerful Disincentive. Moving the dispute into civil litigation gives an HOA board an enormous practical advantage.

If that theory holds, almost any unresolved dispute with an association — including one created by the board itself — can become a potential basis for exclusion. An owner challenges an assessment, enforcement action, architectural decision, records denial, maintenance failure, litigation position, or other board action. If the matter remains unresolved, counsel can argue that the owner might later influence it as a director and might benefit from the outcome.

HOA boards should seek legal advice. But advice of counsel does not create statutory authority, and it should not become de facto Nevada HOA law simply because no regulator or court tests it.

Nevada lawmakers directed regulators to establish criteria, severity standards and limits governing extraordinary HOA health, safety and welfare fines. After years of delay, the CIC Commission approved R091-25. The result gives HOA boards substantial discretion—and removes protections owners had every reason to expect.

Advice of counsel can help show that an HOA board acted on an informed basis. But it should not replace independent regulatory review. When NRED closes complaints without publicly resolving the underlying legal question, aggressive legal opinions can become de facto law without statutory or precedential support.

NRED’s expanding use of confidentiality may be doing more than protecting investigations. It may be allowing substantive interpretations of Nevada HOA law to develop outside meaningful public and Commission oversight.

Section 4 of proposed regulation R091-25 would formalize confidential complaint resolutions that can allow NRED’s interpretations of Nevada HOA law to become operative in practice without public Commission review.

Nevada HOA boards may rely on legal counsel, but fiduciary duty remains with the directors. A recent NRED determination shows why that distinction matters.

Nevada already recognizes that ordinary HOA fines should not generally support foreclosure. But the HSW exception undermines that principle. If a condition truly threatens health, safety, or welfare, the law should require direct cure, abatement, injunction, or code enforcement — not foreclosure over a fine.

Many homeowners like HOAs for community standards and amenities. But HOAs also exercise real governing and financial power over homes. The real question is whether Nevada properly limits that power and protects homeowners when it is misused.

Nevada’s Supreme Court will decide if HOAs can punish homeowners for speaking out and running for office. The case tests the First Amendment inside common-interest communities.

Nevada HOA owners may have rights on paper, but weak enforcement, secrecy, and regulatory capture often make those rights difficult to use in practice.

Most HOA disputes are not about money damages, but about interpretation and compliance with governing documents—CC&Rs, bylaws, and rules that bind homeowners as servitudes on their property. Yet Nevada’s dispute-resolution framework forces these governance disputes into forums that cannot resolve them, ultimately destined for civil litigation so costly and risky that most owners rationally abandon their claims before a neutral ever examines the issue.